The Undiscovered Country and Yesterday's Enterprise

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country ends with the Federation and the Klingons signing the Khitomer Accords, thus leading into a new era of peace and cooperation between the two states. But TNG "Yesterday's Enterprise" earlier established that only 20+ years before the TNG era, relations between the Federation and the Empire were still pretty rocky and tenuous, with ties only really strengthening due to the sacrifice of the Enterprise-C in defending the Klingon colony from Romulan aggression. So how did they get from A to B, so to speak?

A treaty doesn't automatically reverse decades of hostility and distrust. We have little information of what went on between TUC and YE, shifts in the internal politics of the Empire or Federation could have caused strains in their relationship.

The sacrifice of the E-C (a famous name to the Klingons as well) would show the Empire just how dedicated the UFP was to the alliance, that it wasn't just some kind of lip service as a means to keep the peace.

Star Trek VI ignored "Yesterday's Enterprise". Voyager's "Flashback" later tried to smooth things over by having Tuvok the events of STVI the "first Klingon/Federation peace treaty"

Remember, the STVI writers originally planned to end the movie with a scene where Kirk and crew "hand over the keys" to the crew of The Next Generation, oblivious to the fact that they're different Enterprises in different eras.

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country ends with the Federation and the Klingons signing the Khitomer Accords, thus leading into a new era of peace and cooperation between the two states. But TNG "Yesterday's Enterprise" earlier established that only 20+ years before the TNG era, relations between the Federation and the Empire were still pretty rocky and tenuous, with ties only really strengthening due to the sacrifice of the Enterprise-C in defending the Klingon colony from Romulan aggression. So how did they get from A to B, so to speak?

Click to expand...

Actually, Star Trek VI doesn't show the signing of the accords. It does show the Khitomer Peace Conference, however.

As far as how they got from A to B, Bry_Sinclair is right. I would also point out that Star Trek VI itself suggests that the road to true peace will be a rocky one in that the conspiracy was so wide-reaching that it had members from Starfleet, the Klingons, and the Romulans. This suggests that there was a significant minority (possibly even a majority) against peace. The unveiling of the conspiracy would only calm things for a while and silence detractors temporarily. There would almost certainly still be people in high positions on both sides just waiting for opportunities to weaken or end the peace not to mention the Romulans who would do their best to wreck the peace as well.

Look at our own history. Treaties break down all the time for all kinds of reasons. Especially when you have a treaty between two powers that don't trust each other at all. On top of that, more so when one of the signatories is a race of people who love fighting for it's own sake.

I'm not sure it even broke down. I'm sure nobody thought that the Khitomer Accord was going to instantaneously create a new era of perfect peace and cooperation, in which the Federation and the Empire always get along, but only that it marked the first step in a long, rocky journey to toward better relations between two long-time adversaries. There were bound to be plenty of bumps and setbacks along the way.

I mean, look at the USA and Russia. The Cold War ended roughly two decades ago, but it's not as though America and Russian are in perfect harmony these days!

A peace treaty isn't a treaty of friendship or alliance. It just means there isn't a state of war between the groups anymore. The Organian treaty seems to have merely been a cease-fire - the war technically went on, with any contact assumed to be likely hostile. Even as the Ent-A was on a diplomatic mission, specifically meeting a specific ship at a specific time to specifically pick up the Klingon Chancellor specifically for a peaceful, diplomatic mission (specifically), there was a good bit of tension at first.

Knowing the Klingons, as soon as they got their own house in order, they would go back to their old ways. It seems the YE events were the normal order of things - eventually, the Klingons would deal with Praxis, build up their military again, and eventually clash with the Federation, because that's what Klingons do. I've never really thought about it before, but it's possible the Galaxy-class was designed so powerfully with full expectation of fighting the Klingons - that's why it's mostly the same in YE as it is in the normal show. But, the sacrifice of the Ent-C was so significant that it caused the Klingons to actually be impressed with Starfleet, and so the alliance was formed (as the Klingons will apparently be buddies with any honorable warriors, as long as they aren't actively fighting, which would explain the Klink-Rommie TOS alliance and subsequent falling apart); which seems to be pretty new in TNG, so it still took a while to get to that point. Without the anti-Klingon mission, the Galaxy could be repurposed into a more exploratory, diplomatic mission.

Also, they seem to think of treaties as mere suggestions, or relationships, not contracts. As soon as the Chancellor feels like the Empire has been slighted (dishonored), he can call off the treaty with a word - and then, once he's feeling better about the opponent, he will just state the treaty is back in force! (The diplomats and lawyers must really hate dealing with Klingons.) Even in TNG the Klingons in general were seen as a potential threat - not necessarily the whole Empire, but any BoP could have a captain that would do something stupid for glory and honor - and the Empire would disavow any responsibility.

'Yesterday's enterprise' made clear enough what happened between Khitomer and Narendra III:
Khitomer turned a cold war into a frozen war.
The situation deteriorated without enterprise c's sacrifice for the klingons.
Open war broke out.
The klingons bitch-slapped the federation.
Details beyond these are nowhere established.

A probable scenario:
A large part of the fleet was mothballed after TUC (as per canon TUC, this was implied to be a serious possibility - and not contradicted).
The klingons recover from Praxis.

Starfleet training is reorganised to limit military training, to instill in starfleet personnel a distaste toward honing one's military skills.
This is made obvious in Picard, Riker's (leaders of THE top starfleet crew) behaviour from 'Peak performance'. See also Picard, Riker's airhead combat performance in episodes like 'Rascals' and others, proving they cannot use effectively the combat capabilities of their ship.

No Narendra III. The situation between the klingons and the federation deteriorates.

As per 'Yesterday's enterprise', the klingons killed 40 billion. You can't do that by killing merely military personnel.
Most likely, the klingons massed their forces for a surprise attack. Starfleet intelligence, as redundantly shown in canon, was/is utterly incompetent and failed to discover this.
The klingons launched their attack, destroying many federation worlds with populations numbering in the billions, eliminating large parts of the federation infrastructure.
By the time starfleet manages to mass its dispersed fleet to respond/starfleet officers manage to come up with behaviour distinguishable from utter incompetence, the klingons have a substantial advantage.

The federation is incapable of recovering during the war. Perhaps because many worlds seceded from the federation, not wanting to be the next world the klingons burn to a crisp. This is even more probable when one considers how different the cultures of the federation member worlds are.

Look at our own history. Treaties break down all the time for all kinds of reasons. Especially when you have a treaty between two powers that don't trust each other at all. On top of that, more so when one of the signatories is a race of people who love fighting for it's own sake.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Treaties were signed with Germany in 1918, so why did they start a war 20 years later?

Check out the Treaty of Versailles and try to imagine yourself being a German patriot or any patriot. It was extremely humiliating, considered outrageously unfair by the German population and when Hitler came to power he reversed the effects of the treaty step by step and - like Khan - gave Germany order. Unfortunately he didn't stop there but was seeking revenge.

Check out the Treaty of Versailles and try to imagine yourself being a German patriot or any patriot. It was extremely humiliating, considered outrageously unfair by the German population and when Hitler came to power he reversed the effects of the treaty step by step and - like Khan - gave Germany order. Unfortunately he didn't stop there but was seeking revenge.

Bob

Click to expand...

A, yes, Hitler the hero doing the right thing for the german people.
Care to mention exactly what was considered 'outrageously unfair' in the Treaty of Versailles? As opposed to other treaties signed throughout history.
Or tell how exactly were Hitler's actions justified - at any time? When was that period of Hitler the hero?

Care to mention exactly what was considered 'outrageously unfair' in the Treaty of Versailles? As opposed to other treaties signed throughout history.

Click to expand...

So just because this kind of thing has been done before (and after) means, it can´t be described as ´outrageusly unfair´? How about, that significant parts of Germany, that had been part of it for almost 50 years, were annexed by neighboring countries? Or the fact, that the final loans made in the 1920s for paying reparations could only be repaid by Germany as recently as 2010??
BTW, a treaty is by definition a "means of willing parties assuming obligations among themselves, and a party to either that fails to live up to their obligations can be held liable under international law." (Wikipedia)
When you dictate conditions to a defeated country, that has no other choice but to accept the terms, it can hardly be called a "treaty".

I know that´s not to the point of this thread, but I wanted to comment anyway.

How about, that significant parts of Germany, that had been part of it for almost 50 years, were annexed by neighboring countries? Or the fact, that the final loans made in the 1920s for paying reparations could only be repaid by Germany as recently as 2010??

Click to expand...

50 years? Wow! Where had those parts of Germany been part of before that? I'm pretty sure Poland had a 500 year history prior to its annexation by Prussians (and others) in the 1800's.

As for the financial aspect. The UK helped to rid Europe of Nazism, it was the last nation standing against the tide until Roosevelt could wake America up to the threat. Our reward? We too only finished paying off our war debt around 2010. I suppose we could whine that it was "unfair" because we were "the good guys"! But we just got on with it.

The fact that Versailles was too harsh and lead to the rise of Hitler and WWII is well documented, but to whine that it was "unfair" and argue that Hitler was some kind of hero?! I just hope that has been lost in translation.

BTW, a treaty is by definition a "means of willing parties assuming obligations among themselves, and a party to either that fails to live up to their obligations can be held liable under international law." (Wikipedia)
When you dictate conditions to a defeated country, that has no other choice but to accept the terms, it can hardly be called a "treaty".

Click to expand...

I know alot of Southern Europeans that feel that way about the EEC.

I know that none of this is the point of this thread, but I wanted to comment anyway.

The fact that Versailles was too harsh and lead to the rise of Hitler and WWII is well documented, but to whine that it was "unfair" and argue that Hitler was some kind of hero?! I just hope that has been lost in translation.

Click to expand...

WarpFactorZ had asked a question, I answered it by trying to "illustrate" the reasons and why the Germans (of the past) considered him to be a hero. Nothing more and nothing less.

The fact that Versailles was too harsh and lead to the rise of Hitler and WWII is well documented, but to whine that it was "unfair" and argue that Hitler was some kind of hero?! I just hope that has been lost in translation.

Click to expand...

WarpFactorZ had asked a question, I answered it by trying to "illustrate" the reasons and why the Germans (of the past) considered him to be a hero. Nothing more and nothing less.

Bob

Click to expand...

His was a rhetorical question. It was meant as an example of another treaty that had broken down.

You will note I used the term Nazi's in my post, not Germans. I am very aware of the distinction and mean no slight to you or your nation. :shakehands:

On the subject of unfair treaties and fifty year borders, what of the Treaty of Frankfurt? Do you think the Federation could have done something similar to the Klingons exacerbating the drive to war in the alternate timeline portrayed in Yesterday's Enterprise?